You actually find that explanation more sensible than, “she was innocent?”
Try rereading the OP, genius. I was primarily pointing people to the link, while summing her up with the one thing she is most notorious for. But, yeah, I assumed someone would want to read the link and learn a little bit about her before he opened his yap…you know, so he would know what the fuck he was talking about before he posted. But I guess that’s just one more way you and I are different.
Holy shit! A tri-fecta! A hat trick!!!
Do not go to sleep. You might wake up like your old unfunny self. Or worse, as unfunny as Luci. I gotta give it to you, today, though. Comedy GOLD. And not in a sarcastic way.
Absolutely.
I was familiar with her writings and political activism before this, and yet I actually wasn’t aware of this incident. So I’m not sure it’s what she’s best-known for. And of course it would be unfortunate if it were, since having legally bought some guns is rather insignificant.
I read your link. I also looked up other information about the incident. She bought some guns. You find that outrageous. Thus it seems fair to say you don’t have much commitment to your claimed principles. If you did, you wouldn’t have a problem with that.
That’s more than a little deranged.
Cite where I said I have a problem with her being able to purchase the guns.
I’’ wait.
Given the stances she held, given the celebrity achieved by Bobby Seal and members of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground and the adulation of them by the radical left, and given Horowitz’s explanation, I’d say my position is the sane one.
Well, I guess that puts an end to that conversation, doesn’t it?
So, I’ve convinced you. Good.
Yes, you have.
Exactly *what *you’ve convinced me of is an entirely different matter.
magellan’s not a racist. He’s a homophobe, a troglodyte, a liar, a prevaricator, a racist, a fool, but he is not a porn star!
But there was one more thing that led me to my conclusion: the timing. She bought the guns two days before the killing. I find that a questionable coincidence. My guess is either the whole thing was planned the with her getting the guns from the get-go, or they thought they’d have access to some other guns and it fell through. At which time, she committed her part of the crime. I could be wrong, but I think given everything, that makes more sense than she was “innocent” possibility.
No. Even your linked Washington Times article, which is determined to describe Davis as negatively as possible, notes only that one of the two guns registered in her name that were used in the crime was bought two days before the hostage-taking attempt. She had several other guns purchased at various times.
Of course, we can’t definitively prove or disprove any speculative hypothesis, however devoid it may be of any supporting factual evidence. You are clearly pretty deeply invested in believing Davis guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit a violent crime, to the extent of (perhaps inadvertently) distorting and misrepresenting even the little bit that you know about the facts of the case.
So I’m not arguing with your opinion; I’m just stepping in to correct your factual misstatement.
It occurs that mags might still have me on ignore.
Accordingly, this is just a test.
I’m just saying, it was a clear night and there were no other cars on the road. I’m not saying she’s was drunk, but it sure does seem suspicious.
You left out Islamophobe.
And her husband had a well-known drinking problem. Not that it’s related or anything, but it does add some questions.
Well, he’s also president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, for some reason.
Thanks for the correction. And the clarification. If she already had guns (plural), there really was no need for her to buy another one two days before the crime. and that submarines the defense that use had threats…she needed protection. Unless…“Hey, we’re going to need another gun. Maybe a shotgun.”